Yes, I participated by emailed the questions to my local Mormon church leaders so I could be prepared to answer the questions with my friends/family (not so much the B of M ?'s, but those about church finances, Polyandry & such)... The reply I received was belittling and degrading (the tradition in the Mormon church is to NOT ask questions & I was concerned with potential backlash). However, this atmosphere of silence contributed to the Boy Scouts Molestation/Sex Abuse scandal (http://articles.latimes.com/2012/dec/12/nation/la-na-nn-delaware-man-sues-scouts-mormons-sexual-abuse-20121212,
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700027092/Man-awarded-185M-from-Boy-Scouts-in-sex-abuse-case.html?pg=all,
http://m.idahopress.com/news/state/boy-scouts-mormon-church-settle-sex-abuse-lawsuit/article_edf40f7b-4060-5140-b519-b19e503d79f6.html,
Google it & you'll find hundreds more articles)

Here is the list of questions (I did not create them, I discovered them while doing research on Joseph Smith, to better understand the founder of my church):
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BwzM0sA2SHt7bXZaTUh3S2llQkk/edit?usp=sharing
(If this link doesn't work for you, especially on smartphones, go to: http://mormonreformation.blogspot.com)

NOTE: My reply is too lengthy for one post, please see the remainder in the subsequent post.

Here is the reply I received:

"1. You are clearly not well versed in LDS church history. The information you sent is filled with half truths, misleading falsehoods, and a few downright lies.

2. Due to the fact that you do not state your name, shows how dishonest and weak you are.

3. It is clear that you are having problems in your own faith, or you would not be tearing down the faith of others. Those who tear down things held sacred by others, clearly expose themselves as holding nothing sacred in their own life.

4. You attempt to expose the Book of Mormon as proven false through science. If this is the test for spiritual documents, then the Holy Bible must also be false. (It is a proven fact of science that a person cannot be dead for over 2 days and then come back to life) I know Christ lives, not because of a story in the Bible has been proven true by science, but because I feel the Holy Spirit has born this witness to me. I believe... I have faith... I choose to have faith. The Holy Bible and the Book of Mormon are spiritual documents. Do you accept Jesus Christ as your Savior? If you do, then you must have some faith. You must then accept the Holy Bible... That same document that professes a talking donkey, a person turning to a pillar of salt, a stick turning to a snake, and a man named Jesus coming back to life with a perfect body after being dead for over 2 days! (All of which all living scientists today will tell you cannot be done!)

Cont'd

The continuation of the reply I received is:

5. I believe the Holy Bible and the Book of Mormon are true. I believe that Joseph Smith was a good man and a prophet of God. I believe that Jesus Christ is my savior and my only path to salvation. I believe. I have faith. I hold my beliefs sacred.

Sincerely,"

[Name withheld]

Sorry, but this is pretty laughable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danite... yeah, after reading this Danite link related to Missouri, it's just "hilarious".
There's a reason Missouri's Governor passed this Mormon Extermination Order: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_Executive_Order_44

Anon1, what's laughable? You didn't specify.

Fred,
Apparently a culture that thrives on secrecy and not allowing/facilitating questions and answers, the perfect incubator for pedophiles/sexual predators, is humorous to some.

Actually, a good laugh starts on Tuesday at the Fabulous Fox in St. Louis:
"The Book of Mormon", renowned Broadway play.
http://www.fabulousfox.com/BroadwaySeriesRelease/

Where the hell is Eureka-Wildwood? Is it that small dumpy town in northern California? Anti-'s are desperate for any amount of attention.

Apparently Mr. Chung cannot be bothered with using Google or Mapquest before unleashing his foul-mouthed, condescending and inaccurate tirade... Very good representation of the LDS church, Mr. Chung. Your mother must be so pleased.

Mr. Chung's reputation precedes him Mr. Kire. He is a known troll - and as you said, a TERRIBLE ambassador of the LdS Church.

I have flagged his post as "inappropriate" and I encourage others to do so too.

Thank you Fred. I think Mr. Chung's comments are very telling about him and give readers a flavor of what we're up against (his pre-established bias made for a lot of assumptions without any effort to fact-check) and helps demonstrate why we're pursuing reformation via truth & transparency.

Guys, please don't do this. You have been blessed to know the most complete, beautiful Gospel the world has ever known.

Men will always come up with "facts" to disprove the validity of the Church. If a man says something, it doesn't make it true. And if it is true, remember "My thoughts are not your thoughts." For a long time it was "fact" that the Earth was flat, further investigation was done on the matter, and now it's "fact" that the earth is round.

I plead with all of you to read the Book of Mormon with real intent as outlined in Moroni 10:4-5, and ask your Heavenly Father if the Church is His Church, if Joseph Smith is a Prophet, and if the Book of Mormon is True. I bear my testimony that I have asked Heavenly Father and I know these things to be true. I am more sure of the validity of these thing than any fact I have acquired from any other source.

Remember, men waver, but God does not. Men do not know all things, but God does. Men do not always have your best interest in mind, but God does.

The sample of the "theses" provided only indicates points to make principles of faith faithless. While the group pushes their agenda under the cover of "Hey, these are things common members don't know," - its not. By looking at these points they are clearly just the run-of-the-mill anti-Mormon rhetoric.

If they were neutral points, like, "The Church should teach more about the purposes of plural marriage during Sunday School," for example, then maybe that would be plausible. But even then, as a faithful Mormon member, I know all the things you are claiming members do not know - as well as a response to each of the claims listed here - thereby making the point of all this null.

Just another tactic for those who feel they are owed an material explanation on spiritual topics.

This is certainly laughable. The main give-away is that the "sources" for many of these so-called theses are self-acknowledged anti-mormon websites. The creators just took the same rhetoric that's been going on for over one hundred years and repackaged it as coming from LDS members (of course there's no names, locations, or other information is given in order to validate the source). Really guys, you need to try harder!

A few clarifications I'd like to share about my comments:
1) I did not write the 95 Theses & a lot of the items presented early on aren't priorities to me,
2) I am not seeking for my faith to be "proved", that negates the principle of faith. However, asking questions is healthy, blind faith is not.
3) I was raised in a predominantly Mormon community & have taught Gospel Doctrine, Seminary, & other classes. However, I was never taught nor have I seen in any church manual anything about the Dynastic Polyandry in which both Smith & Young participated.
I have grave concerns regarding this topic:
-Higher ranking church officials being allowed to take someone's spouse from them under promises/duress of Celestial reward or Damnation.
-It usurps God's place on the judgment seat and also casts aside the Savior's Atonement. Jesus is my Savior, not JS or BY. Moses did not preach his conditions to salvation, he preached God's. Youth are taught at BYU that THEY make the choice of a spouse, Not God -- as doing would violate their free agency.
To be cont'd

The church's apologist website attempts to explain JS/BY's (abbreviations due to text limits, not disrespect) reason for marrying women who were already married at: http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/Polyandry (obviously this is a new source, not recycled from days of old). I have a concern with anyone being forced/coerced into things, especially marriage, under duress/manipulative tactics.
4) I have equality questions regarding women with the priesthood power in the past and women not being taught anything about this opportunity today.
5) I would also like to see a full, detailed accounting of the church finances. Faith is nice, but I'd like to be able to know/share with those who ask me how/where exactly our funds go (how much to various charitable acts, buildings, etc)... And because people are fallible & as my bro the CFO can attest, people do embezzle.
6) I have concerns with $2 billion spent on an overly extravagant mall project, which then uses ads that disregard the Word of Wisdom & Law of Chastity (women showing cleavage & people drinking alcohol).

In short, I would like to see reformation toward full operational transparency and full disclosure regarding verifiable historical inconsistencies (especially those impacting doctrine).

@Dan Huber
YOU WROTE:
"If a man says something, it doesn't make it true."

RESPONSE:
You're absolutely correct. And the same is true for "something" that the MEN in leadership at the LdS Church might say or have said.

What matters in the end is evidence. And the flat earth example you gave is an excellent one.

And THAT is the whole point of why this project was taken on: The evidence not only does NOT match the truth claims of the LdS Church but shows it is to be lying.
- continued -

(continued from last post)
YOU WROTE:
"Remember, men waver, but God does not. Men do not know all things, but God does. Men do not always have your best interest in mind, but God does."

RESPONSE:
Again, no disagreement. Which is why the model in LdS Scripture - the Bible to be specific - is to TEST the claims of men and not accept them based solely on warm, fuzzy feelings alone. Please consider what the Bible says on this point:

"The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?"
-- Jeremiah 17:9

"He that trusteth in his own heart is a fool: but whoso walketh wisely, he shall be delivered."
-- Proverbs 28:26
- continued -

(continued from last post)
The bible is clear that we cannot trust our hearts in matters of truth so.. how are we to test the spirit that produces these "feelings" (burning in the bosom, etc.) to be sure they are of God?

The Bible (all passages from the Joseph Smith Translation BTW) gives the answer - it tells us:

"Test all things and hold fast to that which is good"
-- 1 Thessalonians 5:21

"Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world."
-- 1 John 4:1

"...I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him...

For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.

And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light."
- II Corinthians 3&4,13-15

"...if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed."
-- Galatians 1:8

- continued -

(continued from last post)
Did you catch that? If not, let me repeat that last one: "...if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary..." the Apostolic instruction there is clear (paraphrasing), "Don't just blindly accept what we say because I or another church leader say something, test it, examine it, investigate and then if it's NOT consistent with the body of evidence reject it - after all there ARE false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ out there!"

So you see the Bible does NOT, I repeat does NOT advocate blind faith devoid of supporting evidence backing it. And it renounces simply relying on feelings (aka "the witness of the Spirit") alone as well. To me the greatest example of this is the (misnamed) story of "Doubting Thomas":
- continued -

(continued from last post)
John 20 (Joseph Smith Translation)
24 But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.

25 The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.

26 And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them; then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you.

27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side; and be not faithless, but believing.
- continued -

(continued from last post)
28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.

29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed; blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

Notice how Christ didn't reprimand or rebuke Thomas for having the gall and audacity to demand evidence before accepting what was being said. Nor is Thomas reproved for his lack of faith or any of the other neat and tidy cliches that you get in today's LdS culture simply for having doubt and/or asking questions.

Rather, Christ gave Thomas the evidence that he'd demanded and acknowledged the faith that resulted from it. The other disciples already had this faith as a result of seeing the evidence, Thomas as simply asking for the same - and he got it, God did NOT refuse him.

The project that John and I were involved in is squarely in the spirit and means of that model from LdS Scripture - nothing more, nothing less.

So why are you and the other Mormons here contending with us?

@Nobody
YOU WROTE:
"This is certainly laughable. The main give-away is that the "sources" for many of these so-called theses are self-acknowledged anti-mormon websites."

MY RESPONSE:
Well when I ran through the 95 LDS Theses I found that the two main websites cited were Wikipedia and MormonThink.com

Now, Wikipedia is a neutral source not an "Anti-Mormon" website. So let's consider MormonThink shall we? This is from the site's "Who Are We?" page:

"Dozens of Latter-day Saints have contributed substantially to the MormonThink website and many more interested readers continue to supply updated information. The majority of those people are active, church-going members of the LDS Church. We have held positions ranging from Gospel Doctrine teachers, CES educators, YW Presidents, Bishops and even a Stake President. Some of us have written faith-promoting articles that have been published in the Ensign and other church publications. Most of us have served missions and almost all of us have been married in the temple. We're just average everyday members that have a real interest in learning about accurate church history without all the sugarcoating that we often receive in Gospel Doctrine classes."
(see http://mormonthink.com/whoarewe.htm )
-continued-

(continued from last post)
YOU WROTE:
"The creators just took the same rhetoric that's been going on for over one hundred years..."

MY RESPONSE:
This reasoning is a Post Modern fallacious. Just because rhetoric is old doesn't mean that it's untrue or unreliable, neither does it mean that it's true or credible - it's just old nothing more. For example using that logic does that make the truth claims of Mormonism untrue and unreliable because they're now 182+ years old?

What matters is the evidence to support said rhetoric regardless of age isn't it? And that's what this event was about - openess and honesty about the evidence.
-continued-

(contined from last post)
YOU WROTE:
"... and repackaged it as coming from LDS members (of course there's no names, locations, or other information is given in order to validate the source)."

MY RESPONSE:
Well we've already addressed the issue of MormonThink.com - which is managed and edited by a member of the LdS Church, former Stake President, and Second Anointing recipient - let's address the demographic of the event organizer and those who participated in the March 16th & 17th posting event shall we? As their press release plainly states:

"A group of over 260 active and disaffected Mormons will be posting a copy of 95 LDS Theses onto the doors of their local churches around the world between the hours of 9:00 p.m. Saturday, February 16th, and 9:00 a.m. Sunday, February 17, 2013."
(see http://www.prweb.com/releases/2013/2/prweb10412726.htm )

And if you had linked through to their Facebook event page you would have seen the names and locations of those who felt comfortable disclosing their identities and locations - it's all right there for anyone to see and validate. It is true that many did NOT feel comfortable exercising full disclosure for fear of reprisal from the LdS Church and/or their Mormon families and friends - this includes the event organizer. However, as the Facebook page clearly shows, the force behind this event was Mormon not "Anti-Mormon" as you state.

@Todd Holby
YOU WROTE:
"The sample of the "theses" provided only indicates points to make principles of faith faithless."

RESPONSE:
Nonsense, see my response to Dan Huber. If that assertion were correct then no one would be a Christian since the Bible clearly commands us to test truth claims and not just accept them blindly.

YOU WROTE:
"While the group pushes their agenda under the cover of "Hey, these are things common members don't know," - its not."

RESPONSE:
Mr. Holby so are you telling that the LdS Church is open and honest about the items on the 95-Theses? If so, why does this image consistently appear in LdS Church Church Educational System (CES) classroom cirricullum and in other official LdS Church publications . . .
https://www.lds.org/bc/content/shared/content/images/gospel-library/manual/36617/36617_all_001_04-translating.jpg

... when the historical record clearly demonstates that THIS is how Joseph Smith "translated" the Book of Mormon and other LdS Scripture?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d7/JosephSmithTranslating.jpg

And why it is that my Mormon friends and family members don't know that Joseph Smith, Jr. had 33-polygamous wives that we know of, over 10 of which where already married to other men, and over 10 of which were teenagers at a time when the average age of a first marriage was 21-years of age.
-continued-

(continued from last post)
YOU WROTE:
"By looking at these points they are clearly just the run-of-the-mill anti-Mormon rhetoric."

MY RESPONSE:
Please see my response to "Nobody". Just because one has critics doesn't mean that one's critics are either "Anti" or in error. Someone can be critical and fully in support of whatever they're criticizing. That is the case here.

YOU WROTE:
If they were neutral points, like, "The Church should teach more about the purposes of plural marriage during Sunday School," for example, then maybe that would be plausible.

MY RESPONSE:
That statement presumes that polygamy is discussed in Sunday School to begin with. Could you show us from the current official LdS Church manuals where it is - I can't find it.

For example, the 1997 official LdS Church manual, "Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young" (see http://www.lds.org/Static%20Files/PDF/Manuals/TPTC_BrighamYoung_35554_eng.pdf ) doesn't make any mention of polygamy and strongly implies that Brigham Young only had two wives - Miriam Angeline Works who left him widowed in 1824, and Mary Ann Angell who he married in 1834. No other wives are mentioned in either the body of the manual or in the timeline that starts on page vii.

The fact of the matter is that polygamy ISN'T in the official LdS Church Sunday School manuals at all isn't it?
-continued-

(continued from last post)
YOU WROTE:
But even then, as a faithful Mormon member, I know all the things you are claiming members do not know - as well as a response to each of the claims listed here - thereby making the point of all this null.

MY RESPONSE:
Respectfully sir, you are one person - one person does not a strong case make. Most of the Mormons that I know only know none of the items discussed in the 95 LDS Theses. It's only a few that even know even one of them.

YOU WROTE:
"Just another tactic for those who feel they are owed an material explanation on spiritual topics."

MY RESPONSE:
Actually this is just a tactic of those who are obeying the clear instructions of Mormon Leaders who have said:

“… call upon them [Mormon Critics] to meet you both in public and in private; and inasmuch as ye are faithful their shame shall be made manifest. Wherefore, let them bring forth their strong reasons against …”
(Joseph Smith, Doctrine & Covenants 71:7)

-continued-

(continued from last post)
“… convince us of our errors of doctrine, if we have any, by reason, by logical arguments, or by the word of God, and we will be ever grateful for the information, and you will ever have the pleasing reflection that you have been instruments in the hands of God of redeeming your fellow beings from the darkness which you may see enveloping their minds.”
(Orson Pratt, “The Seer”, pp. 15-16)

“I think a full, free talk is frequently of great use; we want nothing secret nor underhanded, and I for one want no association with things that cannot be talked about and will not bear investigation.”
(John Taylor, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 20, p. 264)

So Mr. Holby why are you reprimanding and criticizing us for simply doing what Mormon Leaders have told us to?

Since you're contending against the clear directives of past Mormon prophets should we conclude that you are in fact an "Anti-Mormon"?

Fred,

I will not joust with your rhetorical questions. Of course I am a faithful member, but that does not mean I am not well-read in Church History.

You have replied, though, in a way that is in support of my point:
"Respectfully sir, you are one person - one person does not a strong case make. Most of the Mormons that I know only know none of the items discussed in the 95 LDS Theses. It's only a few that even know even one of them."

You seem well-read in Church History and doctrine, too, and I think that's great. Why then, not encourage the group to extend their research through LDS books, scholarly writings and historical documents, to find satisfactory answers? They are there. I don't understand why, if you also know there are valid responses to each "theses", as you seem to indicate in your response, these curious members aren't satisfied with finding them on their own, too. (D&C 109:7)

I've always personally believed that our special three hours spent together on Sunday as a ward family is meant for spiritual edification, communing with each other and the Lord, partaking the sacrament, bearing testimony, worshipping, and discussing applicable scriptures for our peace and salvation.

Thank you for your reply Mr. Holby, it's appreciated - and, as you see from the non-responses of other Mormons to my counter arguments and evidence, unusual and refreshing.

YOU WROTE:
"I will not joust with your rhetorical questions."

MY RESPONSE:
Mr. Holby, you've just proved the point of the 95 LDS Theses protest - this is exactly the response that made the protest necessary: Specifically, when thoughtful questions are asked they're ignored, diminished, belittled and/or the questioner is attacked for asking them.

Now I have presented countering arguments and evidence to your assertions and, yes, I have asked pointed questions in fully anticipation of a response. The courtesy of thoughtful response - and I might add one that's direct and doesn't attack the questioner - would be appreciated.

Thank you.
-continued-

(continued from last post)
YOU WROTE:
"Of course I am a faithful member, but that does not mean I am not well-read in Church History."

MY RESPONSE:
If you felt that I implied otherwise I apologize for that wasn't my thought or intent.

YOU WROTE:
"Why then, not encourage the group to extend their research through LDS books, scholarly writings and historical documents, to find satisfactory answers?"

MY RESPONSE:
Simple, because the answers that have been provided by LdS sources are: a) Unsatisfactory and; b) Unofficial. This point was actually made in the 95 LDS Theses:

"93. The Church relies on FAIR, FARMS and other apologists to defend the faith, but intentionally keeps some distance in order to maintain plausible deniability."
http://mormonreformation.blogspot.com/
-continued-

(continued from last post)
YOU WROTE:
"They are there. I don't understand why, if you also know there are valid responses to each "theses", as you seem to indicate in your response, these curious members aren't satisfied with finding them on their own, too. (D&C 109:7)"

MY RESPONSE:
As noted previously we don't consider the responses that have been presented by LdS Apologists "valid" - especially, and in particular, since they are UNofficial.

Further, you seem to have ignored the passage that I cited - D&C 71:7. Previously, I cited in part now I will cite in full:

“Wherefore, confound your enemies; call upon them to meet you both in public and in private; and inasmuch as ye are faithful their shame shall be made manifest. Wherefore, let them bring forth their strong reasons against the Lord.

Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you—there is no weapon that is formed against you shall prosper; And if any man lift his voice against you he shall be confounded in mine own due time.”
(Doctrine & Covenants 71:7-10)

So if that passage is true and correct then what is the LdS Church afraid of? Why are they afraid of? After all, LdS Scriputures promises that, "...no weapon that is formed against you shall prosper; And if any man lift his voice against you he shall be confounded in mine own due time.”

Given all that, the behavior of the LdS Church in regard to these issues makes absolutely no sense doesn't it?
-continued-

(continued from last post)
YOU WROTE:
"I've always personally believed that our special three hours spent together on Sunday as a ward family is meant for spiritual edification, communing with each other and the Lord, partaking the sacrament, bearing testimony, worshipping, and discussing applicable scriptures for our peace and salvation."

MY RESPONSE:
Well you can believe what you want but that particular belief is contrary to LdS Scriputre which says:

"Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly CONTEND for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints."
-- Jude 1:3 (JST)

"...we were bold in our God to speak unto you the gospel of God WITH MUCH CONTENTION.

For our exhortation was not of deceit, nor of uncleanness, nor in guile:

But as we were allowed of God to be put in trust with the gospel, even so we speak; not as pleasing men, but God, which trieth our hearts."
-- I Thessalonians 2:2-4 (JST)

Respectfully, want I see in your belief as to what the 3-hour meeting block should entail is just more of the same "whistling through the graveyard" that made the 95 LDS Theses necessary to begin with.

Further, you failed to address WHY the content of what's covered in those 3-hours is fraught with spin doctoring, obfuscation, and deceit - the CES curriculum previously mentioned being Exhibit A of this fact.
-continued-

(continued from last post)
So as you see, the 95 LDS Theses are entirely consistent with and in support of LdS Scripture. We are merely asking the LdS Church to align their behavior to them. In other words we are calling the leadership of the LdS Church to repent of their current disobedience and simply obey the clear dictates of LdS Scripture.

So, again, why are Mormons showing such an angry spirit of contention against the message and actions of those of us who participated in this protest?

Heavenly Father gave us the model when He said, "Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD..." (Isaiah 1:18, JST), so why is it that Latter-day Saints and their leaders refuse to do just that?

While I sort of applaud Latter Day Luther and the comments here in support, I think the effort is ultimately hopeless in the case of mormonism. The "lies" equal "the organization" in this case...no lies, no organization...that is the sum total of what it is, they are dependent on the lies. There is no underlying great philosophy there to be uncovered. The were some genius concepts in the New Testament for Martin Luther to mine, but in this case, it is a different thing.

This article published during the prez election said it well. Here's a quote and a link....shows also why it is hopeless talking to a true blue mormon who doesn't want to join the rest of us here on the rational version of planet earth...which is why I won't bother engaging with anyone here in the comments section...it's pointless:

"Mormonism’s social structure is so strong, not despite its frail basis in truth, but because of it – because it makes the price of admission to the club high. To say “Yes, I am a Mormon” is to say “Yes, I’m in the 2+2=5 club, are you?” This (along with expensive tithing) filters out casual participants. You need to be willing to compromise a normal sense of what’s reasonable and rational to be part of this group."

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/why-a-mormon-should-not-be-president-2012-10#ixzz2LOcSswmi

Cheers!

YOU WROTE:
"I also appreciate a thoughtful discussion."

MY RESPONSE:
As do I. And I must say that I appreciate your calm, even, thoughtful tone. IMO, if there were more members like you the LdS Church would be a better place for all.

YOU WROTE:
I think members grow angry when they see any sort of protest arise, which in turn causes contention - a typical response to protests.

MY RESPONSE:
Agreed, you make a very valid point. However, I think that we can both agree that ad-hominem arguments and other forms of personal attacks against those who present arguments and evidence we don't like and disagree with is never helpful.

Sadly this tends to be the typical response of most members to just about anything that doesn't present the LdS Church is absolutely glowing positive terms.
-continued-

(continued from last post)
YOU WROTE:
From what I understand from you are writing - the real purpose of the project is to encourage the Church to officially declare some sort of position on each of the topics mentioned.

MY RESPONSE:
That's part of it, yes. However, first the LdS Church needs to start telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

As someone said well, "If someone claims to have the truth you should probably make sure that they're not lying to you." Well, the LdS Church claims to have the truth but lies to investigators, members, and the public constantly. It not only erodes it's credibility but makes it's members look like (sorry but I have to use the word) members of a cult.

Telling the truth would be a GREAT step in the other direction.
-continued-

(continued from last post)
YOU WROTE:
But, why would leaders need to address them when most, if not all of these topics are dealt justly with in numerous books found at Deseret Book, as well as FAIR, FARMS, etc., and by earnest members in forums such as this?

MY RESPONSE:
For all the reasons that I've articulated in this post and others. For another reason is because the body of LdS Apologetics is so bad that it's actually costing the LdS Church members.

Former 34-year CES Staffer, Award Winning Mormon Historian and President of the Mormon History Association President, Grant Palmer isn't alone in declaring that LdS Apologists have cost the LdS Church more members than all the Mormon Critics combined.

I agree with him.

And this isn't just idle opinion from a few people. John Dehlin (of Mormon Stories fame) recently released the results of a study that confirm this assertion. Here's a link to it: http://mormonstories.org/top-5-myths-and-truths-about-why-committed-mormons-leave-the-church/
-continued-

(continued from last post)
YOU WROTE:
As one who has practiced the art of communications for some time, I have seen it evident what it comes down to is crafting. Anyone can take specific quotes from specific sources to make a claim. I found answers, material, not just spiritual, to all the the theses mentioned that satisfy me.

MY RESPONSE:
Well my first degree was in Advertising Design and my second degree in Marketing. So, I not only know THAT the message can crafted, I know HOW it can. However, I also know that if you lie to your constituency they will feel betrayed and turn on you with a vengeance when they find out.

What I have just described to you is the problem in a nutshell: The LdS Church needs to stop lying and needs to start telling the truth. Period.

AND they need to own their history rather than deny it. Period.
-continued-

(continued from last post)
YOU WROTE:
Again, D&C 109:7. Like my testimony, I have learned these things for myself.

MY RESPONSE:
Well, I've been trying to avoid this since I didn't want to offend you (really!) but, to me, D&C 109:7 which says . . .

"And as all have not faith, seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom, seek learning even by study and also by faith;"

... is problematic because it's essentially a prescription for Confirmation Bias (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias ), Thought Stopping, and Information Control (the latter two being cult behaviors according to research -see http://www.freedomofmind.com/Info/BITE/bitemodel.php ) not a reasonable formula for discerning truth. This is the problem that I see with Doctrine & Covenants 109 in general, I'm afraid.

Rather it's a flawed epistemology that essentially encourages the readers to rely on feelings not facts as well as come to the conclusion first and then bend the facts to fit it.
(that last statement, BTW, is what I see wrong with current LdS Apologetic method in general)
-continued-

(continued from last post)
MY WROTE:
My understanding of the the purpose of church is indeed not contrary. Your scriptures are true, we should meet together and strengthen ourselves through study (seminary, institute, BYU Religion classes, conferences, etc.). The Church hasn't left us without means to learn more about church history and doctrine entirely, but it's main precept, I believe, is that we learn on our own.

MY RESPONSE:
I agree with nearly everything you said except the final statement. Other churches deal truthfully and directly with their history without lying to their members. I would agree with your last statement if the LdS Church did too - unfortunately it doesn't.
-continued-

(continued from last post)
MY WROTE:
I very much enjoyed the lessons taught at Church last Sunday. I felt Christ's love and I felt the Spirit of Truth.

MY RESPONSE:
And I think that's wonderful.

However, feelings are one thing, facts are another. The LdS Church is big on the former and small on the other - this makes it a flawed, imbalanced, dysfunctional organization rather than a balanced healthy one.

Those who participated in this protect are advocating health for the LdS Church, nothing more.

Todd~
I appreciate your comments. Actually, the Church has not made available all the documents & journals they have of Joseph Smiths'. That's how this all came about for me... Last month I wanted some reading material to learn more about our founding prophet (I'm traveling a lot & wanted some reading material). I was astonished when LDS.org didn't have any of JS' volumes available... I mean, we've microfiched most of the world's population, surely the documents they have in the vault have been imaged somewhere, right??

Not so. What I found is that the church is starting a process of publishing an edited version of JS' papers which they estimate will take them 10-15 YEARS! How strange, considering we're all working toward the goal of indexing 1,000,000 names for the Stake this year... Surely, having our founding prophet's writings available to study and know him better is of equal importance-- as believing in the prophet is a cornerstone of the church (one of the 3 things we're asked to include when bearing our testimonies) and one of the temple recommend questions.

In the following Deseret News link, you will see Utah Jazz owners & church members, Larry & Gail Miller, created an endowment to help fund the Joseph Smith Papers project-- so we could all get to know "Brother Joseph better". The Church Press plans to produce a 30 VOLUME series! (Obviously A LOT of material we haven't had available to us for study.) I thought they'd be placing it on LDS.org ...

Cont’d
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/695256182/LDS-Church-announces-new-Historians-Press.html?pg=all

However, even though they have a GENEROUS endowment for the project -- it is still going to COST us each $40/Volume (x 30 = $1,200!!!!), or if you splurge for the leather-bound at $130/Volume that's only $3,900/person!
Hmmm... Suddenly, it doesn’t seem so “readily available” to every member -- to accomplish the personal study so many who have been commenting on this article have said could be EASILY done.

Perhaps the LDS organizational culture of blaming the questioner is just too ingrained, so that it’s too easy of a “Fall-Back” response! Truly, HOW could they have accomplished all the scholarship reported in this comments section WITHOUT all the documents being made available to them by the church? Even Elder Jensen mentions in the Reuters link below that we, the church members, haven’t been taught in church materials that JS participated in Polygamy (much less, the Polyandry he & BY did). I learned about the Polygamy from a St. Charles, MO, history buff who took our ward members on a trip to Nauvoo. BUT he never mentioned Polyandry (and if he knew about it, he most definitely would have), and I just RECENTLY learned about the Polyandry from the church’s apologist website: http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/Polyandry
[NOTE: Whether you’re ok with the Dynastic Polyandry concept or not, is up to

you... As you read, it essentially boils down to the prospect of your spouse being sealed to someone at a higher level position in the church than you.]

The FACT remains, that we are still in the dark as to WHY JS never mentioned his “First Vision” experience for the FIRST 12 YEARS of the church -- given the FV is a MAJOR point of differentiation that MOST of us grew up with! And when he did begin talking about it, it was AFTER a similar story of a young boy, James Marsh’s experience was published in the Elder’s Journal that JS was the Editor of (BTW the Marsh family descendants still live in the Joplin, MO, area -- I’ve spoken with them)... And then he wrote 4 different versions of the story... Again, which we don’t have all the documents to ascertain why. THIS IS WHAT WE’RE LOOKING TO BE SHARED WITH US.

[Personal education/scholarship is another topic: How is every member expected to be that good of a scholar? They can’t--that model is out-dated! As an educator myself, I know students learn through various methods and the college professor/scholar methodology works for only ~25% of the population -- That’s a lot of members (75%) coasting by then (sounds like the 80/20 rule we often laugh about... 20 of the people doing 80% of the work).
Could it be because “the work” is a broken model? Perhaps “the work” should be focused more on doing (active rather than passive): i.e. Being Good Samaritans

and getting out into our neighborhoods/townships/state and performing service (volunteering to help tutor in our local schools -- many children aren’t learning to read, write & do basic math), rather than sitting behind a computer screen Indexing & believing that will take us to heaven? Personally, I have confidence God’s power is sufficient to organize all the genealogy he needs to -- since I have several native American ancestors without any records to be had, and so does Africa and several other regions of the world.)]

UNFORTUNATELY, the Church Historian & General Authority, Marlin Jensen, spearheading this project was just “RETIRED” in August 2012... Apparently his forthright comments about the declining membership of the church (or perhaps conflicts in the “editing” being done to the JS Papers) has hastened his retirement, Elder Jensen said:
“Not since a famous troublespot in Mormon history, the 1837 failure of a church bank in Kirtland, Ohio, have so many left the church.”
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/31/us-mormonchurch-idUSTRE80T1CM20120131

IT IS OBVIOUS, A REFORMATION & OVERHAUL IS IN ORDER.

I’m tired of being blind-sided by questions on things we were never made aware of -- looking ignorant about the TRUE history of our church does not help our missionary

effort. And it shouldn’t require living in Utah or being from a 5-generation Mormon family to know about some of these things.

Transparency & Truth is what is needed. An expedited completion of the JS Papers project, published to LDS.org, will be an essential first step.

LDS scriptures foretell of a cleansing (1 Ne 13, 2 Ne 28, 2 Ne 3:24, D&C 3:1-11, 64, 112, 124). Indeed, the LDS Church stands as a cult due to its secrets & control over its blindly-obedient members.
The "follies & abominations" (124) of the LDS Church, which LDS scriptures warn against, include:
* Polygamy (Jacob 2 &3 & teachings of Christ~marriage w/ only 1 man & 1 woman),
* Masonry (Moses 5:29, teachings of Christ~requires satanic blood oath),
* Worship of Kings aka Profits/Prez (type & shadow of wicked King Noah/Mosiah, Kingmen vs. Freemen),
* Alteration of the BoM (warned against by Moroni/Mormon), which changed the identity of God (Alma 11:23-40, Mosiah 15:1-5, Ether 3:14 & original BoM)
* Alteration of First Vision w/ only the 1st version correct w/ "the Lord" appearing,
* Priesthood taken from women & Blacks. All held it in early pure years.
* Required Blind Obedience refuted by JS in Millennial Star 15,
* Satanic teachings of Blood Atonement (Journal of Discourses 3, 4),
* Justified murders by Brigham & Danites: Mountain Meadow Massacre, other Danite murders. Women threatened if they continued to murmur against hated polygamy, which caused severe depression then & now:Utah ranks highest in US depression.
* Satanic Masonic rituals in LDS Temples, which require Satanic Blood Oaths. Christ warns against "swearing a blood oath...as it comes of evil".
* Secrets ~ never of God
Nevertheless, Artifacts do exist, which confirm BoM! Hopewell Culture, etc.

Funny that "Brother Kire" positions himself as a member, yet when doing a simple search on LDS Tools shows no "Kire" in the STL Stake. Bro. Kire, what unit might you be part of? perhaps your questions would be able to be addressed by your local leadership vs. a obscure local website?

This whole protest = non event.

Doug~
Your very typical condescending attitude is duly noted. Ever consider the other two Stakes, to which you wouldn't have access? Or the fact that the Bishop has already contacted SLC several times, receiving the same pat answer -- a non-answer? We both know the M.O. here -- Attack and attempt to discredit people asking honest questions.

You don't even recognize the Penn State/Sandusky state-of-mind going on... The rejection of valid questions just fuels the environment where predators are allowed to flourish. Fortunately, all the truths are coming out:
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/child-abuse-cover-up-costs-mormon-church-3-million-71939217.html
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700027092/Man-awarded-185M-from-Boy-Scouts-in-sex-abuse-case.html?pg=all

Just the tip of the iceberg:

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/dec/12/nation/la-na-nn-delaware-man-sues-scouts-mormons-sexual-abuse-20121212

http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/10/18/boy-scout-perversion-files-law-firm-releases-files-on-1200-alleged-sexual-abusers/

http://www.postregister.com/scouts_honor/part1.php

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/12/melvin-novak-lawsuit-boy-scouts-mormons_n_2288235.html

http://m.idahopress.com/news/state/boy-scouts-mormon-church-settle-sex-abuse-lawsuit/article_edf40f7b-4060-5140-b519-b19e503d79f6.html

http://www.waynesimister.mysite.com/ldscourt.htm

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/19/boy-scout-sex-abuse-files_n_506587.html

http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/business/legal/boy-scouts-mormons-accused-in-sex-abuse-complaint-666677/

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/dec/12/delaware-man-sues-boy-scouts-mormons-over-sex-abus/?page=all

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=23366547

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2010/04/portland_sex_abuse_verdict_lea.html

http://www.kellyclarkattorney.com/files/

Per the usual M.O., an attorney who is LDS, testifies in the case and tries to blame the parents for entrusting their boys in the care of their Scout Master (really stellar example of compassion):
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/01/boy-scouts-of-america-por_n_522667.html

Just like Penn State, it's time to take our heads out of the clouds, recognize the problems that a culture of secrecy and blind faith creates, and make the needed changes.
(Oh, let's not mention JS's bizarre Blood Atonement, a.k.a. Imposed Death Sentence, which disregards the Savior's Atonement; or our secret temple ritual of having one's Calling & Election Made sure... Really?!? Usurping God's position on the Judgment Seat and casting aside the Savior's Atonement-- Who needs them, right?!? We'll make that decision ourselves!)

And we wonder why people don't think we're Christian.

John Kire,
Excellent points. Recall how Satanic Ritual Abuse (SRA) surfaced throughout many Mormon states as discovered by Presiding Bishop Counselor Glen L. Pace in his leaked "Interoffice Memo".to the controlling "Strengthening the Members Committee" Gestapo.
He describes the corroborating testimonies of hundreds of independent victims of orchestrated sex abuse (trauma makes children vulnerable to mind control programming ~ research Senator Frank Church's Congressional Hearings on actual CIA MKUltra mind-control avail on the net & then recall that Apostle Neil Maxwell was a former CIA agent).
The monotone deliver of pre-written speeches (not given by the spirit) by stern authoritative "father" figures assists programmed members to be blindly-obedient like children. Many books have been written on the wide-spread child abuse within elite Mormon families to create perfect/talented/ultra intelligent obedient members.

Read: Five Browns abused by Dad, "Paperdolls: Recovering from Sex Abuse in Mormon Neighborhoods", Martha Beck's disclosure of abuse by her "elite" intellectual dad, Hugh Nibley."Leaving the Saints", LDS Cathy Obrien's "Trance Formation of America", LDS Ann J. Davis, "Hell Minus One" ~ parents CONFESSED in writing after receiving orders from their handlers--their Bishop & St. Prez, etc.,
Then recall shameful LDS Judge Jay Bybee who tried to legalize torture (used in mind control & not effective for "enhanced" interrogations). Lots of CIA LDS boys!
.

Calling people who ask honest questions 'anti-Mormon' is a scare tactic. Don't assume that all of us, at some point, weren't totally active and in love with Church. I was baptized at 8 and moved to UT for college when I was 24 because I had so many questions and was told to 'Ask away!', so I did. I thought if I could find answers anywhere, that it would be UT. My motivations were nothing more or less than to know God and my Savior more completely so that I might follow His will more completely and entirely. Doesn't sound like someone who's exactly anything 'anti' Godly, does it? Much like we accept when God chastises us that it's because He loves us and wants to see us grow and be stronger and better, I know that that's the only motivation I've ever had when asking tough questions of and about the Church. I 'get' that this depth of sincerity and honesty scares a lot of people and that it even threatens them as it challenges them to renew something they thought they knew at its core, and that's scary and challenging and, in fact, almost made me commit suicide. But, we ask these questions of the Church out of nothing more than an honest heart, if it be anything less, let me be judged of and -solely- by God for it.

I believe that I will stand to be judged solely for my own actions. Knowing that means that I won't lie about what I believe about eternity. I'm not anti-Mormon, none of us are. We're simply pro-honesty and we're tired of being scared and demonized for it.

God expects us to seek truth over tradition.

And that's a very difficult thing to do for Mormons who have lived their pro-family, social life based on tradition and blind obedience. We've been ingrained through repetitious songs of "Follow the Prophet", mantras of "When the Prophet has spoken the thinking has been done" and "never speak ill of the Lord's Anointed".

Unfortunately, for the members, the scriptures also warn us that our leaders serve as Moneychangers, "liars, hypocrites" and false Prophets, apostles (D&C 64). Even Joseph Smith was human and failed to do the Lord's will and not his "own will and carnal desires"...And so he fell (D&C 3:1-11).

Award-winning LDS Historian, D. Michael Quinn has recorded in his "Origins" book of several witnesses that recorded Joseph's repentance of polygamy and Masonry prior to his Masonic murder...with Willard Richards in the Carthage Jail wearing a heavy coat in the hot, humid summer? Why did Joseph jump out of the window?

Just after Joseph's murder, Danite Hosea Stout did dirty deeds for Richard's cousin, Brigham Young, as recorded in documentation regarding the poisoning of Samuel Smith, who lived while another Smith relative succumbed to the "medicine" Stout distributed as their "nurse"... Brigham sought his King position.

Lots of Mormon history to discover, only available to those who seek truth over tradition and stand for "pro-honesty" at all costs! (John Kire).

Just one more response from me. I just got to say again that something's not adding up in this campaign. Per Fred, the purpose is that "the LdS Church needs to start telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth." It then indicates 95 topics it would like the Church to officially take a stance on.

The problem is though, that nearly all of these items can already be learned on one's own. For those without access to Church educational courses, study guides, books, there is still a fair amount of access to materials at lds.org, http://rsc.byu.edu/, and apologist sites. Yes, we ought to reason together with questions, but, again, many members like myself have found answers to these items already. Many I remember being taught in my youth in seminary. Let's all be pro-honest here and remember the goal of the church is to help spiritually prepare one for the Lord. I believe this is the focus at church on Sunday, and as I ponder all the truths that are taught at each meeting, I feel it is true. Given this, there is really nothing to reform, as the church is accomplishing its purpose.

@John Kire, the JS Papers are also readily available for you with a provision of hi-res scans of original documents: http://josephsmithpapers.org/the-papers .

Todd hits the nail on the head about receiving an answer via "feeling"! It's called "HeartSell". The Church's communications division, Bonneville Communications, boasts about their marketing strategy known as "Heart Sell" -- where they use emotionally charged ads to ensure the message is remembered as a Feeling. (i.e. This year's #1 Super Bowl ad by Budweiser, with the Clydesdales.) It’s right here at Bonneville Communication's website, for every member to see and recognize how it is used on us (that’s why non-emotional people are so incredibly difficult to convert): http://www.bonneville.com/?nid=32

The Church is full of GOOD people, but it doesn't mean we haven't been victims of "HeartSell".

Why is Bonneville Communications so certain about this methodology that they would boast of it? Because they have the Church’s data to prove that it has worked on generations of members. That is, until the newest generation which has grown up impervious to marketing. And so now they are trying to retain them by sending them on missions right out of high school.

@Todd Holby
YOU WROTE:
Just one more response from me. I just got to say again that something's not adding up in this campaign. Per Fred, the purpose is that "the LdS Church needs to start telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth." It then indicates 95 topics it would like the Church to officially take a stance on.

MY RESPONSE:
Again, taking a stance is SECONDARY to the LdS Church telling the truth. There is a real incongruity between an organization that claims to have the truth but won't speakfully - can't you see this Mr. Holby? This is a problem - a BIG problem.

Or put another way:

"There is a very real sense in which the church’s history is its theology, and that not merely the supernatural events surrounding the church’s beginnings with the Angel Moroni and the golden plates at Hill Cumorah. In a body that believes itself the recipient and expression of continuing revelation, it is everything that has happened to the church ever since. And just as creedal churches have official statements of faith, the Mormon Church tends to have official versions of sacred history."
("Mormon America (Revised Edition)" by Richard and Joan Ostling; position 639.7 Kindle Edition)

In other words, when the LdS Church lies about it's history it's lying about it's theology too. Or more simply, you end up with a Church that claims to be the ONLY True Church yet lies constantly.
-continued-

(continued from last post)
YOU WROTE:
The problem is though, that nearly all of these items can already be learned on one's own.

MY RESPONSE:
Actually Mr. Holby about the ONLY way to learn TRUE Mormon History rather than FAITHFUL (that is spin-doctored) Mormon History is on your own - the LdS Church isn't going to teach you is it? I illustrated this point with this evidence - which, BTW, you have yet to address:

"... the 1997 official LdS Church manual, "Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young" (see http://www.lds.org/Static%20Files/PDF/Manuals/TPTC_BrighamYoung_35554_eng.pdf ) doesn't make any mention of polygamy and strongly implies that Brigham Young only had two wives - Miriam Angeline Works who left him widowed in 1824, and Mary Ann Angell who he married in 1834. No other wives are mentioned in either the body of the manual or in the timeline that starts on page vii."
(post of 7:42 pm on Monday, February 18, 2013)

So you keep claiming that the LdS Church does honestly teach these things but the body of evidence utterly discredits this claim.
-continued-

(continued from last post)
YOU WROTE:
For those without access to Church educational courses, study guides, books, there is still a fair amount of access to materials at lds.org, http://rsc.byu.edu/, and apologist sites.

MY RESPONSE:
Let's be serious here: Obsidian Edged wood clubs are "steel swords"? Tapirs are "horses"? Semitic DNA has been "absorbed" into the general aboriginal population (sorry - doesn't happen!)? Aztec and Mayan pyramids were Old Testament style "temples" with Jewish Levitical rites? Masonry was secretly practiced in the Old Testament Jewish Temples? Astarte and other pagan goddesses are proof of a "Mother in Heaven"? The Biblical urim and thummim were "seers stones"? The "Golden Plates" were really copper or brass and only weighed 15-20 pounds? The list of absurdity goes on and on and on.

The reason why no one takes LdS Apologetics serious is that it's just so unspeakably ridiculous!

YOU WROTE:
Yes, we ought to reason together with questions, but, again, many members like myself have found answers to these items already.

MY RESPONSE:
OK, talk to us. Exactly what ARE these answers that you've found? Most Mormons when confronted with TRUE Mormon History feel betrayed and feel angry. How is it that you are at peace with the type of "answers" given by LdS Apologists when for many - if not most - Mormons those same "answers" just create more doubt in the veracity of the Church.

Help us out here Mr. Holby.
-continued-

(continued from last post)
YOU WROTE:
Many I remember being taught in my youth in seminary. Let's all be pro-honest here and remember the goal of the church is to help spiritually prepare one for the Lord. I believe this is the focus at church on Sunday, and as I ponder all the truths that are taught at each meeting, I feel it is true.

MY RESPONSE:
And you have just nailed the biggest theological problem in the LdS Church. What is there to prepare for?

In the Gospels Christ (the Lord) said (paraphrasing and summarizing), "Come as you are!" and the Apostles echoed that sentiment. However, the LdS Church has turned the gospel message into, "Come and work to be worthy!" Christ said, "Here's a gift" the LdS Church says, "It's gift - but you have to EARN it!" (thus negating it has a gift)

Sorry Mr. Holby but this is INDEED a different Christ and a different gospel than the one given in the Bible by Christ's Apostles.
-continued-

(continued from last post)
YOU WROTE:
Given this, there is really nothing to reform, as the church is accomplishing its purpose.

MY RESPONSE:
Well you have unknowingly touched on yet another problem with "the church" and the "its purpose".

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" isn't really a church - it's a trademark of the "Corporation of the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints". This is a big and a complex subject so rather than making this even longer I will just refer you to the excellent article that Rock Waterman (a faithful and practicing Mormon who has been calling for reform in the LdS Church for several years now) wrote on this subject:

"How Corporatism Has Undermined and Subverted The Church of Jesus Christ" by Rock Waterman
http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2010/10/how-corporatism-has-undermined-and.html
- continued-

(continued from last post)
Here's a short exerpt:

"...the church that Joseph Smith established in 1830 no longer even exists. At all.

What we think of as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, says Smith, operates today as a mere trademark of the corporation that owns the name to it. The actual church that used to go by that name, and which claims Jesus Christ as its head, does not exist today in any legally recognized form.

I realize that sounds impossible for some people to grasp. Well, I'm here to help.

As it so happens, I know something about corporate law as it applies to churches, so allow me to back up a bit here and give you a quick crash course so you can understand how a government chartered corporation can own a church that no longer even exists. I promise to make it easy to understand."

I'm sorry Mr. Holby but the LdS Church is an organization that is ripe - I would even say OVERLY ripe - for major reform.

Thank you as always, for your civil and even handed responses.

@Fred -

I respectfully disagree with your interpretation of the mission of the Church. And you have provided a good example of what I see happening from my perspective.

You wrote: Christ said, "Here's a gift" the LdS Church says, "It's gift - but you have to EARN it!"

Now, that may be very well your interpretation of what you have been taught and what you have studied. But it has led to an unfortunate, wrong interpretation of a lesson on obedience you have experienced, let's say, in Sunday School.
There is an excellent talk on grace, which, if you took the time to listen to, would help clarify the Church's true doctrine regarding your statement: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLXr9it_pbY .

Now, you could very well not listen to it. You could pursue certain points or particular quotes elsewhere that could "support" your interpretation. Meanwhile, I will be enjoying what is being taught in the video, which describes how Christ paid the full price, and we try our best to follow him out of love.

This representative of our conversation about your protest. I have yet to encounter a statement from you, anyone else here, on any of the 95 theses, which somehow invalidates the interpretation I have learned through research, study and faith. In the end, I will be seeing "A" and you will see "B".

@John Kire
Well said! I have nothing to add since I 100% agree.

@Todd Holby
YOU WROTE:
"..that may be very well your interpretation of what you have been taught (salvation must be earned) and what you have studied. But it has led to an unfortunate, wrong interpretation of a lesson on obedience you have experienced, let's say, in Sunday School."

MY RESPONSE:
Mr. Holby the fact that the modern LdS Church teaches that salvation must be earned can be easily proven with a quick definition of terms and then a question:

First, I am going to define "Salvation" the way that the official church website does:
"In the scriptures, the words saved and salvation often refer to eternal life, or exaltation (see Abraham 2:11). Eternal life is to know Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ and dwell with Them forever—to inherit a place in the highest degree of the celestial kingdom (see John 17:3; D&C 131:1-4; 132:21-24)."
(http://www.lds.org/topics/salvation?lang=eng )
-continued-

(continued from prior post)

Then, I will simply ask this question:

Q: "If I accept Jesus Christ by grace through faith as my Lord and Savior on my deathbed just before I die, and after spending a lifetime sinning and running from God, will I spend enternity in the Celestial Kingdom with Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ?"

And logically, if the answer to that rhetorical question is anything but, "Yes!" then salvation becomes something that must be earned. Likewise, if any additional requirements or conditions are added to that yes answer then, again logically, salvation ceases from being a free gift and becomes something that must be earned.

Members in the UK share their request for truth from LDS leaders as well: http://stevebloor.wordpress.com/2012/12/21/proclamation-to-the-first-presidency-quorum-of-the-twelve/

Proclamation to The First Presidency & Quorum of The Twelve
Posted on December 21, 2012 by SteveBloor

PROCLAMATION FOR TRUTH

To the First Presidency & Quorum of Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. We, as members of said Church, give this our Proclamation:

Let it be known that we twelve members of the Church represent many thousands of other members all over the world who are honest, faithful & sincere. We, in good conscience, have served faithfully in the Church giving much of our time, talents & financial resources to build up the Church, believing it to be the Kingdom of God on earth. Many of us have served faithfully with all our hearts, might, mind & strength all our lives.

WHEREAS, we believe in honesty & integrity, we expect God’s Kingdom on earth to be led by God’s authorised servants who epitomise these same values in their leadership. Yet we find it is not so. We find instead that loyalty & obedience is valued more highly by them than integrity to the truth.

WHEREAS, we believe in truth, we expect the Church of the One True God to be built on truth. We expect no pretence, nor corruption, only honesty & openness, having nothing to hide, displaying a willingness & desire to declare all the facts in a

Cont'd Next Post

full & frank disclosure. Yet we find an unwillingness to discuss difficult areas of Church history, with the excuse that some aspects of Church history are not faith promoting.

WHEREAS, we expect that when the Church claims to be “The One and Only True Church of Jesus Christ on the face of the whole earth”, we expect the Church bases this claim on facts which are true & verifiable. There should be no truth claim which under the ‘full light of day’ is proven to be otherwise. Yet we find many of the truth claims to be based not on substantive facts, but on an altered narrative crucially lacking in historical accuracy, with uncomfortable, yet context altering details suspiciously ignored, even hidden from the membership.

WHEREAS, we have been perpetually taught that the divine authority of God had been established through the restoration of the Holy Priesthood with the calling of Prophets & Apostles, therefore we trusted that God would lead & direct his servants. It followed that when prophets, seers & revelators, addressed us under inspiration, their words would be the mind & will of God. We were assured that God would never let them lead the Church astray. Yet we find many failed or changed prophetic pronouncements of the past suspiciously declared as “folklore” & just “personal opinion”.

WHEREAS, many faithful members are seekers after truth & desperate to receive

Cont'd Next Post

honest, full & frank answers to their sincere questions, we find that instead of being assisted, they are ignored at best, or at worst ostracized for simply wanting to know the full facts about the origins of their Church. In most cases Stake Presidents & Bishops are ill-equipped to answer their questions.

Brother Chris Ralph from the UK recently sent two Open Letters to the Europe Area Presidency with vital questions which needed to be answered in order for the authority of the Church to continue to be justified in its claim to be of divine origin. The Open Letters were sent to the Europe Area Presidency in August and October and as of now remain not only unresolved, but without response. As a group of twelve concerned members we also sent a letter to the Area Presidency on the 3rd December pleading for a response. We have received no response.

Therefore, we APPEAL to the highest authority of the Church for answers to these vital questions. Brethren your response to these questions will not only show sincere concern, but could potentially resolve the painful religious trauma syndrome many members suffer from as a result of the cognitive dissonance they face as they encounter historical facts completely in contradiction with the story told them by the Church. We can attest that the pain we and many, many others are experiencing upon discovering that our faith is not based on truth, is an emotion

Cont'd Next Post

akin to feeling like we have been deceived by those we respect & love.

Brethren, we DECLARE this day, the 21st December 2012, that without a formal public pronouncement of the answers to these crucial questions in a full, frank & honest manner, that you as leaders of this Church be held responsible for the continued wilful deception of many millions of faithful Church members. The Church membership needs its leaders to show integrity, humility & absolute honesty if this Church is to continue to provide the sense of purpose & security which the faithful members deserve.

Belief in a fanciful lie, no matter how consoling, is a damnable false hope. The Church can continue to provide security & meaning for its followers, but only if it is based on truth. Please consider your positions of trust & have the integrity we all hope you have by telling us the truth we need to hear, rather than just hoping we will all just go away. We will not go away, and there are thousands of others also ready to speak as we do. Truth will win out in the end, we hope you have the courage to follow that truth no matter where it may lead.

We affirm to you that humility, honesty, integrity & authenticity is a far greater & more rewarding path to follow than blind obedience & meaningless loyalty can ever be.

Yours faithfully

Martha Bache
David Bloor
Steve Bloor
Jeremy Brown
Lisa Campbell
Pip Chapman
Damian Mitchell
Tim Morgan
Tom Phillips
Sophia Ralph
Ted Ralph

Cont'd Next Post

Ken Smith

The questions are linked in this post:
Twelve members of Mormon Church plead for honest answers to two open letters
http://stevebloor.wordpress.com/2012/12/14/twelve-members-of-mormon-church-plead-for-honest-answers-to-two-open-letters/

@Todd Holby
While I have no doubt that you believe that, the fact remains that what you have just said - and the Brad Wilcox video (which, BTW, I was aware before you suggested it) - are NOT articulating what LdS Church now teaches or has ever taught in regard to salvation.

Again, read the definition of "salvation" that I used from the official church website:
"In the scriptures, the words saved and salvation often refer to eternal life, or exaltation (see Abraham 2:11). Eternal life is to know Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ and dwell with Them forever—to inherit a place in the highest degree of the celestial kingdom (see John 17:3; D&C 131:1-4; 132:21-24)."
(http://www.lds.org/topics/salvation?lang=eng )

We both know that according to official LdS Church doctrine exaltation into the Celestial Kingdom won't be granted by accepting Jesus Christ by grace through faith will it? In fact, the same page that I pulled the definition for salvation says:

"This [Celestial] exaltation requires that men receive the Melchizedek Priesthood, and that all Church members make and keep sacred covenants in the temple, including the covenant of eternal marriage. If the word salvation is used in this sense, no one is saved in mortality. That glorious gift comes only after the Final Judgment."
-continued-

So, the Brad Wilcox video is just spin-doctored nonsense from someone who lacks proper priesthood authority to establish official LdS Church doctrine.

BYU Professors do NOT determine official, correlated LdS Church theology and, as stated previously, what he presents in that rather notorious lecture is NOTHING like current LdS soteriological orthodoxy as determined by the current or past First Presidencies:

Or, as I stated in a past article:

"“College Professor” and/or “Scholar” has no place in the hierarchy of the LdS Church.[2] They don’t interpret official doctrine, they don’t define LdS orthodoxy, they don’t dictate LdS Church policy and they have exactly no “Priesthood Authority” over those who do. Thirteenth President Ezra Taft Benson made this quite clear when he said:

“Doctrinal interpretation is the province of the First Presidency. The Lord has given that stewardship to them by revelation. No teacher has the right to interpret doctrine for the members of the Church. If Church members would remember that, we could do away with a number of books which have troubled some of our people”[3]"
(see http://beggarsbread.org/2012/08/13/scolasticus-cum-peter-principle/ )

As much as you, I, or anyone might wish that what Professor Wilcox presented in "His Grace Is Sufficient" is current LdS Church doctrine, it's not. LdS Church doctrine is still established in Salt Lake City not Provo isn't it? And it will be for some time to come won't it?

Fred,

I agree that even professors and scholars, even those from BYU, do not decide doctrine. I also have no problem with your quotes.

I disagree, though, on the interpretation of the quotes by yourself as well as the folks on the podcast you provided. I'm sure you realize also that I will trust Brad Wilcox, a member of the Sunday School General board, to know more regarding positions on church doctrines, over Eric and Bill.

For example, both you and the hosts of the show allude to salvation differently than what I have learned. "In the scriptures, the words saved and salvation often refer to eternal life, or exaltation. Eternal life is to know Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ and dwell with Them forever—to inherit a place in the highest degree of the celestial kingdom."

Joseph F Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, and Bruce R McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, both state salvation by normal Christian terms and exaltation in Mormon terms are very different. When pondering Heaven, I imagine one thinks of living with Jesus again. Mormons call that Eternal Life, or Exaltation, the highest degree of Glory in the Celestial Kingdom, while others may call that salvation. But in these books we read that salvation at its most basic is a term for every degree. This discrepancy in interpretation makes a large part of Viewpoint's arguments invalid.

Oh and doctrine isn't established in Provo or Salt Lake. It's established by God.

Here's some great info... LDS Mission Presidents & their families receive lush expense accounts for their supposedly unpaid "Lay Ministry", while those whom they supervise live extremely frugally and pay their own Mission expenses: http://mormondisclosures.blogspot.com/2012/12/pay-lay-missionary.html

To quote David Twede: "The LDS church claims to follow Christ when one of his primary missions was to take care of the poor. However, with ordinary missionaries having to be frugal, missionary couples having to pay for everything, members as free janitors cleaning toilets and them paying tithing when they can't afford their own mortgages, the LDS church by paying for GA's kids private schools, GA's gardeners and GA's up-scale homes has shown its priority to have the poorest members take care of the richest leaders."

The house of cards is tumbling down...

John, I thought that Eric Johnson's analysis of compensation that Stake Mission Presidents and their families receive was quite good: http://www.mrm.org/mission-president-handbook

The conclusion, I thought, was especially good:

"Remember, many Mormons like to think that their leaders are not paid. Many who might read this church manual may be very shocked to hear about the many benefits the mission president receives. Their housing expenses, food, car, insurance packages, maid and gardener, and even college tuition for the children are fully covered. Perhaps this is why the manual warns the mission president to not let anyone know that he is “paid” for his service. One can only wonder what benefits other “volunteer” leaders receive under this or similar arrangements.

Semantics is employed by FAIR by saying the church does not have “professional clergy” and arguing that these other leaders receive nothing more than a “living allowance.” Based on all the benefits received by the mission president, however, wouldn’t it be more honest to just admit that this “living allowance” is comparable to what most people consider a “wage”—and a very good one, at that?"

@Fred,

Apologies if I was unclear. What I meant to indicate was the definition of salvation provided on lds.org, as quoted by you, is INTERPRETED differently by you and the hosts of the show, rather than what doctrine is really taught (and what I have researched for myself.) I know that definition is not yours. It's the interpretation you have that I am focusing on.

Given that, my previous post should make sense to you.

Oh, I understood your prior post perfectly well in that regard but I'll repeat my prior rhetorical question: "What is there to interpret?" The definition from the official LdS Church website is pretty clear - as are the requirements for "salvation". And they negate both your arguments and Professor Wilcox's address.

The bottom line is this: "Salvation" in LdS Theology is NOT by grace alone through faith in Jesus Christ, it is as it always has been: Conditional Grace. That is, "Grace + Meeting certain conditions that make you "worthy" of receiving salvation." The very same web page makes this clear:

"Individuals cannot be saved in their sins; they cannot receive unconditional salvation simply by declaring a belief in Christ with the understanding that they will inevitably commit sins throughout the rest of their lives (see Alma 11:36-37). However, through the grace of God, all can be saved from their sins (see 2 Nephi 25:23; Helaman 5:10-11) as they repent and follow Jesus Christ."
( http://www.lds.org/topics/salvation?lang=eng )
-continued-

(continued from previous post)
So, Mr. Holby, regardless of anything that the emerging proponents of Mormon neo-orthodoxy coming out of Provo may assert Conditional Grace is the OFFICIAL position of past and current LdS Church theology. Or as I put it in my article (paraphrasing slightly):

"So tell me, who would you advise [us] to listen to: A bunch of BYU Professors sequestered away and privately arguing over their personal opinions out in Provo, or the LdS Church First Presidency publicly dictating official Church dogma and doctrine to the membership in Salt Lake City?"
(see http://beggarsbread.org/2012/08/13/scolasticus-cum-peter-principle/ )

That said, I will accept Professor Wilcox's address as "official doctrine" just as soon as I see it published in Ensign - however, I'm not holding my breath on that one.

Thank you again for your civil and even tone - it's very much appreciated.

The problem here again, is that is seems you have restricted your interpretation of salvation to one definition. Not only that, but that definition itself seems to be rooted in the idea that Mormons somehow earn their own salvation. Nothing is further from the truth.

The very same link you have provided, in which you have used a line to "support" your claim, begins with "In the doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the terms “saved” and “salvation” have various meanings." and lthen lists 6 different meanings.

I fully understand, as do most members I know, that the Lord has asked us to follow Him, be baptized, keep the commandments, etc, because we love the Lord and we want to conduct our lives in a saintly way, not because it somehow self-qualifies us for exaltation.

(continued from last post)
And in response to this . . .

"I fully understand, as do most members I know, that the Lord has asked us to follow Him, be baptized, keep the commandments, etc, because we love the Lord and we want to conduct our lives in a saintly way, not because it somehow self-qualifies us for exaltation."

. . . I would ask you to consider this: In the death bed scenario that I outlined (and you answered "Yes" to the man wouldn't be able to do ANY of those things after receiving salvation could he? Would he still be "saved"?

The Brethren say, "No!" You and Professor Wilcox say, "Yes!" So should I go with your and some dude who works for The Brethren at their University or should I go with the guys with the Priesthood Authority and position power to actually determine and articulate official LdS doctrine?

Pretty simple answer to my way of thinking!

Fred,

You have come to the wrong conclusion, I'm afraid.

1. Of course we are to obey God's commands and receive all ordinances. Jesus has asked us to be perfect as He is. Clearly we are to live the Lord's divine laws. Repentance and conversion is a manifestation that we are following Him. So it is obvious that would receive both judicial and personal forgiveness by keeping His commands.

2. You said: The Brethren say, "No!" You and Professor Wilcox say, "Yes!" - which is completely wrong. There is absolutely nothing contradictory at all. In the word's of Brad Wilcox and modern day scripture, our obedience determines our kingdom of glory/what type of resurrected body we will receive. In your scenario, such a man would be probably saved in the Telestial kingdom. This comes to your interpretation that salvation must equal exaltation which is what is causing the disconnect. Again, a full understanding of grace, works, and "salvation" are in order. But I suppose you would want President Monson to come teach you this himself with an official public declaration, based on your messaging. :)

Why not use the manuals and materials the Church has approved by its leaders? Then receive a full confirmation from the Spirit it is true. Do you sustain church leaders and the actions they take to provide you guidance?